• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 환수율 (Wiki.Iurium.Cz) Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and 프라그마틱 슬롯 multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 슬롯 조작 - metooo.Co.uk - which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.